In bid to add affordable senior housing, should Boulder sacrifice quantity for quality?

May 17--Senior housing projects tied up together in Boulder's planning process are stirring a debate among officials over what matters more when it comes to affordable housing: quality or quantity?

City Council on Tuesday night took up a concept review for 1665 33rd St., the former site of Fruehauf's Patio. Planned is a mixed-use project that would include restaurant, retail and office space and, most crucially, 100 permanently affordable senior apartments.

The development is a sister to one at 311 Mapleton, which would provide 93 market-rate rentals, a skilled nursing facility and a rehabilitation center. The Fruehauf's facility would provide the required affordable housing for Mapleton, and developers -- who also own The Academy senior living in Boulder -- have said the fates of the two may be intertwined.

Only 19 of the Mapleton dwellings would need to be designated to satisfy the city's inclusionary housing ordinance, but the development team saw an opportunity to meet a huge need in Boulder, said Gary Berg, the project's lead owner.

"We have a population that's going to be doubling in the coming years. If we could provide 100 affordable units, that would be outstanding."

That need isn't the only consideration. Berg said that, through the planning process, city officials and neighbors have raised concerns over the segregation of affordable housing. Council members echoed that during Tuesday night's meeting.

"It's an important community value to have integrated socio-economic levels at different sites," said Councilwoman Mary Young. "That's something the community has been adamant in asking for."

A split may result in a net loss of affordable units. An Option B presented by Berg at the meeting involved including eight affordable apartments at Mapleton; Fruehauf's would then become half market-rate -- a 42 percent reduction in overall affordable dwellings.

That would be too great a loss, said council members Jill Grano and Sam Weaver, though Weaver said he would gladly sacrifice a "small number" of units for an even distribution -- sentiments that Young and Bob Yates echoed.

In a Wednesday follow-up call, Berg said the ownership group would explore more ways to retain the greatest number of affordable units while diversifying both communities.

Boulder presently has about 600 units of affordable senior housing, according to Elisabeth Borden, of The Highland Group, a Boulder-based consultant firm focused on senior housing. Only 100 such dwellings have been added to the city's stock since the late '70s, and existing properties maintain waitlists.

"If somebody calls and says, 'I need to live in Boulder,' I can't find anything," said Eileen Doherty, director of social service group Colorado Gerontological Society. "An influx of 100 units of affordable housing would be a real benefit."

Doherty was concerned about the restrictions that might be attached to the Fruehauf's site. Developers would like for it to be a car-free community, meaning residents would not be provided with parking. Residents would have access to a fleet of electric cars that they could check out, similar to library books. The property is also working on a partnership with Boulder-based Via Mobility Services, and is in close proximity to public transit.

Multi-family development of all types, including senior housing, is trending toward less or no parking, said Borden. Berg said parking spots would cost $30,000 to $40,000 each; having to provide parking would make the project too costly and reduce the affordability of the rentals.

"If you are trying to make your money go as far as possible, that's a good thing to get rid of," he said. "Why build all these underground parking spaces for people who use cars two to three times a week?"

Doherty said the idea was "discriminatory" to the elderly and those of lower income. Many seniors continue to work, often at jobs that fall outside public bus schedules.

"I have always been a believer in public transportation," she said, but requiring residents to give up their cars "would create difficulty for seniors to be able to be independent."

Shay Castle: 303-473-1626, [email protected] or twitter.com/shayshinecastle

___

(c)2018 the Daily Camera (Boulder, Colo.)

Visit the Daily Camera (Boulder, Colo.) at www.dailycamera.com

Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.